coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant was born in 1951 and lives in Karlovac.
5.  The applicant and her husband were holders of a specially protected tenancy on a flat in Karlovac. In 1991 a bomb was thrown into the flat and the family moved out of the flat for security reasons. By a decision of the Karlovac Housing Committee of 29 November 1991 they were given another flat in Karlovac for temporary occupation. The applicant’s husband moved out of the flat in 1992 and they subsequently divorced. The applicant and two children born of the marriage continued to occupy the flat. The above-said decision was annulled by the same Commission on 11 November 2000.
6.  In 2000 the Karlovac Municipality, as the owner of the flat, brought a civil action in the Karlovac Municipal Court against the applicant, seeking her eviction. The claim was granted on 1 February 2008 on the ground that the flat at issue had been given for temporary occupation to the applicant’s husband who had left the flat and that that decision had been annulled in 2000 and that therefore she no longer had a legal basis for occupying the flat.
7.  This judgment was upheld by the Karlovac County Court on 19 August 2009.
8.  In her subsequent constitutional complaint the applicant argued that she had been a holder of a specially protected tenancy on a flat in Karlovac, owned by the Karlovac Municipality and had to leave that flat owing to the circumstances not attributable to her. She had moved into the other flat, on the basis of a decision issued by the Karlovac Housing Committee. That other flat was also owned by the Karlovac Municipality and it had been agreed between the owner and the applicant that she would be granted a specially protected tenancy on that other flat. She also argued that the case concerned an existential issue for her; that she had been living in the flat for more than twenty years; that she had addressed the Karlovac Municipality on numerous occasions and had been told “not to worry and that everything would be alright”; that she had fulfilled her obligations as a tenant. The complaint was dismissed on 29 March 2012.
4.  The applicants were born in 1938 and 1944 respectively and live in Draginje, Serbia.
5.  On 15 November 2001 the applicants applied to the Karlovac Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Karlovcu) for enforcement of a civil court judgment awarding him damages adopted on 28 August 1991 by the Šabac Municipal Court in Serbia.
6.  On 4 March 2005 the case was forwarded to the Zagreb Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Zagrebu).
7.  The applicants’ motion for enforcement was declared inadmissible on 24 October 2005 on the ground that the Šabac Municipal Court judgment had never been recognised in Croatia.
8.  This decision was upheld by the Zagreb County Court (Županijski sud u Zagrebu) on 3 January 2006 and served its decision on the applicants’ representative on 17 February 2006.
9.  On 20 March 2006 the applicants lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske).
10.  On 10 June 2009 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ constitutional complaint as ill-founded.
11.  The decision of the Constitutional Court was served on the applicants’ representative on 10 July 2009.
4.   All of the applicants have either tenancy rights to their flats on the basis of occupancy vouchers (yaşayış sahəsi orderi) issued by the relevant executive authorities or ownership rights to them on the basis of an ownership certificate issued by the competent domestic authority (see Appendix - Table I).
5.  In four of these cases, the applicants’ flats were unlawfully occupied by internally displaced persons (“IDPs”) from different regions of Azerbaijan under occupation by Armenian military forces following the Armenian Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, and in one case (application no. 7928/11) by a family of refugees from Armenia.
6.  The applicants lodged separate civil actions before the domestic courts seeking the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.
7.  On the dates indicated in the Appendix (Table I), the applicants’ claims were granted by various domestic courts, which ordered the eviction of the IDPs from their flats.
8.  The respective judgments became final and enforceable. However, the IDP families refused to comply with those judgments and despite the applicants’ complaints to various authorities, the judgments were not enforced.
9.  According to the Government’s letter of 17 May 2012, the judgments in the applicants’ favour in applications nos. 58265/09, 73346/10, 7928/11 and 16785/11 were enforced in April 2012.
4.  The applicant was born in 1943 and lives in Rab.
5.  On 20 June 2001 the applicant’s brother J.K. brought a civil action against the applicant and their father in the Rab Municipal Court (Općinski sud u Rabu) seeking to be declared a co-owner of the house previously owned by their father.
6.  On 20 February 2002 the applicant lodged a counter-claim against J.K.
7.  By a judgment of 4 October 2004 the single judge of the Rab Municipal Court, Mrs L.P.M., ruled for J.K. and dismissed the applicant’s counter-claim.
8.  By a judgment of 12 December 2007 the Rijeka County Court (Županijski sud u Rijeci) dismissed the applicant’s appeal and upheld the first-instance judgment. This judgment was served on the applicant’s representative on 14 January 2008.
9.  On 23 January 2008 the applicant lodged a constitutional complaint with the Constitutional Court (Ustavni sud Republike Hrvatske) against the judgments of the ordinary courts. He complained, inter alia, that the first-instance judgment in his case had been rendered by a person whose appointment as a judge had later on been quashed by the Administrative Court (Upravni sud Republike Hrvatske).
10.  On 6 March 2012 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional complaint. The Constitutional Court held that judgments of the Administrative Court quashing judicial appointments had ex nunc effects only and that therefore the first-instance judgment in his case had been reached by a person who had been a judge at the relevant time. This decision was served on the applicant’s representative on 15 March 2012.
11.  Meanwhile, on 26 November 2003 National Judicial Council (Državno sudbeno vijeće) appointed Mrs L.P.M. a judge of the Rab Municipal Court. L.P.M. took her office on 15 December 2003.
12.  However, a certain Mrs N.M., who was running for the same office, lodged a request for the protection of a constitutionally guaranteed right (zahtjev za zaštitu ustavom zajamčenog prava i slobode čovjeka i građanina) with the Administrative Court against the above decision of the National Judicial Council claiming that L.P.M. had not satisfied statutory requirements for the appointment.
13.  By a judgment of 2 December 2004 the Administrative Court ruled for N.M. and quashed the National Judicial Council’s decision. It found that L.P.M. had not had the required work experience as a law clerk (sudski savjetnik) at the time when the notice of competition for the judicial office at issue had been published.
14.  On 13 July 2005 the Constitutional Court dismissed subsequent constitutional complaint by L.P.M.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Vienna.
5.  In 2007, the applicant was recipient of emergency relief payments (Notstands­hilfe) under the Unemployment Insurance Act (Arbeitslosen-versicherungsgesetz).
6.  On 15 March 2007 the Vienna Labour Market Service (Arbeitsmarkt­service) withdrew payments of emergency relief for six weeks finding that the applicant had thwarted an employment offer. The applicant appealed contesting the establishment of facts by the authority and requesting the taking of further evidence.
7.  On 4 July 2007 the Vienna Regional Labour Market Service, without holding an oral hearing, dismissed the applicant’s appeal as unfounded. It found that the applicant, when he had applied for a post as an IT-trainer, had declared an excessive salary expectation and had emphasised that he was handicapped and that a potential employer had to expect him to be absent for three weeks’ sick leave every three years. The applicant had also stated in his application that his handicap would not hinder him to fully perform the exigencies of a post in the IT-area. The Regional Labour Market Service thereupon concluded that the reference to a handicap that was not relevant for the post advertised, the reference to expected sick leave and the high salary expectation showed the applicant’s negative attitude towards a reasonable employment opportunity.
8.  The applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs­gerichtshof) inter alia contesting the assumptions made by the administrative authorities, complaining of the lack of taking of evidence and explicitly requesting an oral hearing.
9.  On 11 September 2008 the Administrative Court, without holding an oral hearing, dismissed the complaint as unfounded. On the merits it found that the applicant’s salary expectation had been communicated to the potential employer without indicating an acceptable margin of negotiation. Therefore, his statement in this respect gave the impression that the applicant was not willing to take the post with a lower salary. His initial application could therefore be understood as an attempt to thwart an employment offer. With regard to the decision not to hold an oral hearing, the Administrative Court found that the facts had been sufficiently clear in the present case and that a hearing had therefore not been necessary.
10.  That judgment was served on the applicant’s counsel on 21 October 2008.
11.  The applicant did not lodge a complaint with the Constitutional Court.
4.  The applicant was born in 1963 and lives in Leithen.
5.  In 2007, the applicant was recipient of emergency relief payments (Notstands­hilfe) under the Unemployment Insurance Act (Arbeitslosen­versicherungs­gesetz).
6.  On 18 September 2007 the Salzburg Labour Market Service (Arbeitsmarkt­service) withdrew payments of emergency relief for eight weeks finding that the applicant had thwarted an employment offer. The applicant appealed contesting the establishment of facts by the authority and requesting the taking of further evidence.
7.  On 24 October 2007 the Salzburg Regional Labour Market Service, without holding an oral hearing, dismissed the appeal as unfounded. It found that the applicant’s information to the potential employer to be only available for work until 4 p.m. due to continuing education that the applicant followed at the time was effectively a frustration of an attempt to find employment.
8.  The Constitutional Court (Verfassungsgerichtshof) dismissed the applicant’s request for legal aid to lodge a complaint on 28 February 2008.
9.  However, after having been awarded legal aid, the applicant lodged a complaint with the Administrative Court (Verwaltungs­gerichtshof), explicitly requesting an oral hearing.
10.  On 2 July 2008 the Administrative Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unfounded. On the merits it found that the applicant had not acted sufficiently seriously interested in the employment offer at issue and therefore had thwarted an attempt to find employment. The withdrawal of the emergency relief by the authorities, based on the Unemployment Insurance Act, had therefore not been unlawful. With regard to the decision not to hold an oral hearing the Administrative Court stated that, since the relevant facts had already been established and since the legal questions were sufficiently answered by existing case-law, an oral hearing had not been necessary.
11.  That judgment was served on the applicant’s counsel on 3 October 2008.
5.  The applicant was born in 1960 and lives in Istanbul.
6.  On 30 October 1992 the applicant, who is a university professor, got married and took her husband’s surname pursuant to Article 153 of the Turkish Civil Code. As she was known by her maiden name in her academic and professional life, she continued using it. However, she could not use it in official documents.
7.  Following the amendment made to Article 153 of the Civil Code on 14 May 1997 that entitled married women the right to put their maiden name in front of their husband’s surname, the applicant started to avail herself of this possibility in official documents.
8.  Following the adoption of new Civil Code on 22 November 2001, Article 187 was worded identically to the former Article 153.
9.  On 5 December 2007 the applicant brought proceedings before the Beyoğlu Court of First Instance for permission to use only her maiden name, “Tanbay”.
10.  On 31 January 2008 the Beyoğlu Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s request on the ground that, under Article 187 of the Turkish Civil Code, married women had to bear their husband’s name throughout their marriage and were not entitled to use their maiden name alone.
11.  The applicant appealed. On 14 July 2008 the Court of Cassation upheld the judgment.
12.  On 4 December 2008 the applicant’s rectification request was further rejected by the Court of Cassation on the ground that it failed to meet the requirements foreseen in the law and the applicant was fined the equivalent of EUR 80 (euros) as a result. The latter decision was delivered to the applicant on 9 January 2009.
5.  The applicant carried on business with a socially-owned company, HK “Viskoza a.d.-Celvlakno a.d” from Loznica (hereinafter: “the debtor”), which appeared to have failed to pay a certain invoice.
6.  On 5 March 2003 the applicant filed an application for the enforcement of that invoice with the Valjevo Commercial Court.
7.  On 11 March 2003 the Valjevo Commercial Court issued an enforcement order, by virtue of which the debtor was ordered to pay the applicant 2,669,582.39[1] Serbian dinars (RSD), plus statutory interest as of 21 March 2001 and costs of enforcement proceedings.
8.  On an unspecified day this decision became final.
9.  On 24 November 2003 the enforcement proceedings were stayed, due to the restructuring of the debtor.
10.  On 29 May 2009 the enforcement proceedings were continued.
11.  On 11 June 2009 insolvency proceedings were initiated against the debtor and the Privatisation Agency was appointed to be the insolvency administrator. The insolvency proceedings against the debtor are still ongoing.
12.  On 17 March 2010 the Valjevo Commercial Court recognised the applicant as a secured creditor (razlučni poverilac).
13.  On 15 January 2013 the applicant was partially settled in the amount of RSD 1,178,784.52[2].
14.  The remainder of the final court decision of 11 March 2003 remained unsettled.
4.  The applicant was born in 1958 and lives in Bosilegrad.
5.  The applicant was employed by HK.PK. Yumco a.d., a socially/State-owned company based in Vranje (hereinafter – “the debtor”).
6.  On 6 March 2007 the Bosilegrad Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a)  salary arrears in the amount of 70,387.12 Serbian dinars (RSD),[1] plus statutory interest; and
(b)  RSD 6,262.50[2] for his legal costs.
7.  On 29 March 2007 the judgment became final.
8.  On 19 March 2008 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Vranje Municipal Court, proposing that it be carried out by means of a bank transfer.
9.  On 24 March 2008 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
10.  On 10 August 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
11.  According to the material in the Court’s possession, the case is still pending before the Constitutional Court.
12.  On 30 May 2007 the Bosilegrad Municipal Court ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the debtor to pay him:
(a)  salary arrears in the total amount of RSD 28,024[3], plus statutory interest;
(b)  employee meal benefits (naknada za ishranu na radu) in the amount of RSD 18,900.40[4], plus statutory interest;
(c)  holiday pay in the amount of RSD 5,373,33[5], plus statutory interest;
(d)  RSD 5,088[6] for his legal costs; and
(e)  the pension and disability insurance contributions due for the period 1 January 2004 to 7 June 2004.
13.  On 14 June 2007 the judgment became final.
14.  On 19 March 2008 the applicant lodged an application for the enforcement of the above judgment before the Vranje Municipal Court, proposing that it be carried out by means of a bank transfer.
15.  On 24 March 2008 the court allowed the application and issued an enforcement order.
16.  On 10 August 2010 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal.
17.  On 3 April 2013 the Constitutional Court held that the applicant’s “right to trial within reasonable time” was violated and ordered the Vranje Municipal Court and National Bank of Serbia to enforce the final judgment at issue as soon as possible.
4.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in Călărași, Moldova.
5.  On 24 December 2007 the Călăraşi District Court approved a friendly settlement agreement concluded between the applicant and the Călăraşi local council and discontinued proceedings. This judgment was final. A writ of enforcement obliging the Călăraşi local council to pay the applicant the amount of 521,811 Moldovan lei (MDL) was issued and on 11 January 2008 the applicant instituted enforcement proceedings.
6.  On 12 May 2008 the Călăraşi local council submitted a revision request challenging the final judgment of 24 December 2007. They argued that the representative of the local council had not been authorized to conclude a friendly settlement agreement with the applicant. They invoked as new circumstances a report prepared by the local committee on issues regarding victims of political repressions. The report was drawn up after the settlement agreement had been approved by the court and it invalidated a previous decision of the committee, which acknowledged the applicant’s right to compensation for property confiscated during the 1949 political repressions.
7.  On 30 May 2008 the Călăraşi District Court dismissed the revision request as submitted outside the three-month time-limit and as ill-founded. The local council appealed this judgment.
8.  On 28 October 2008[1] the Chișinău Court of Appeal upheld the appeal, quashed the judgments of 30 May 2008 and 24 December 2007, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. On 14 November 2012 the Supreme Court of Justice finally obliged the Călărași local council to pay the applicant MDL 426,265.[2]
9.  On 2 December 2011 the applicant lodged a civil action claiming damages for the violation of his right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time pursuant to Law no. 87 of 21 April 2011 (see paragraph 12 below), which at the time amounted to four years and four months.
10.  On 12 May 2012 the Supreme Court of Justice finally found the length of the proceedings to be excessive and attributable to the acts of the authorities; it awarded the applicant MDL 5,000 (approximately 316 euros (EUR)) as non-pecuniary damage, dismissing the remainder of his claims.
5.  The applicant was born in 1973 and lives in Târgu Jiu.
6.  On 15 November 2002 the applicant and M.P. were committed for trial on charges of robbery and aggravated murder. Throughout the proceedings the applicant pleaded innocent.
In his statements to the police and the prosecutor, the applicant’s co‑accused declared that he had committed the acts together with the applicant. He changed his position before the court, stating that he had acted alone and that the applicant had not participated in the alleged crimes.
7.  On 16 December 2003 the Gorj County Court convicted the applicant of murder and sentenced him to twenty-three years’ imprisonment. It based its decision on the evidence in the file, including the statements made by both the accused during the investigations and in court, as well as on witness testimony and forensic evidence. The court concluded that both defendants had committed the crimes.
8.  On 28 June 2004 the Craiova Court of Appeal quashed that decision and remitted the case to the County Court for re-examination.
9.  On 13 July 2004 the Gorj County Court heard evidence from the applicant and the co-defendant. On 20 December 2004 it found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to twenty-three years in prison.
10.  The defendants appealed. The Craiova Court of Appeal re‑examined the merits of the case. It examined the evidence already gathered, heard evidence from the defendants, requested new evidence and was addressed by defence counsel and the prosecutor.
11.  On 22 September 2005 it acquitted the applicant as it considered that the evidence in the file did not convincingly link the applicant to the robbery.
12.  The prosecutor appealed in cassation on the ground that the Court of Appeal had wrongly assessed the evidence and had relied exclusively on the evidence administered directly before it, ignoring the evidence adduced during the prosecution and before the lower courts. The High Court of Cassation and Justice was addressed by defence counsel and the prosecutor. It allowed the defendants to address it before the end of the hearing (ultimul cuvânt al inculpatului).
13.  In a final decision of 8 February 2006 the High Court quashed the Court of Appeal’s decision, re-examined the evidence in the file and upheld the County Court’s decision of 20 December 2004. The High Court found that the Court of Appeal had not weighed the evidence properly and had ignored relevant information from the file, notably the statements made by the co-defendant immediately after the commission of the crimes, whereby he had incriminated the applicant. It reassessed the evidence and found that the first statements given by the applicant’s co‑defendant were corroborated by the remaining evidence.
5.  The applicants were born in 1947 and 1975 respectively and live in Budapest.
6.  On 15 February 2006 the first applicant was interrogated as a suspect on charges of tax fraud. On 5 February 2008 the second applicant was interrogated as a suspect on charges of tax fraud in connection with the same criminal proceedings.
7.  On 13 May 2008 the Budapest IX District Public Prosecutor’s Office preferred a bill of indictment against both applicants and two other co-accused charging them with tax fraud, a conduct punishable under section 310 (1) of the Criminal Code, and other related crimes, including fraud and forgery of private documents.
8.  The Pest Central District Court held a first hearing on 6 April 2011, when the four defendants gave evidence. The next hearing was scheduled for 1 September 2011. On that occasion the District Court took the evidence of six witnesses.
9.  Two further hearings were held on 2 December 2011 and 4 April 2012.
The District Court adopted a judgment on 4 April 2012 finding the applicants guilty as charged. It fined the first applicant 600,000 Hungarian forints (HUF – approximately 2,000 euros (EUR)) and the second applicant HUF 300,000 (approximately EUR 1,000). Since none of the accused or the Public Prosecutor appealed, the District Court confined its reasoning to the statement of the facts and the applied legal provisions. The judgment was served on the applicants on 30 May 2012.